Lines you'll remember from the FBI press conference on Sept. 26, 2017, announcing arrests for corruption in college basketball.

Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Joon H. Kim, second from right, and FBI Assistant Director William Sweeney, Jr., right, hold a press conference to announce the arrest of four assistant basketball coaches from Arizona, Auburn, the University of Southern California and Oklahoma State on federal corruption charges, Tuesday Sept. 26, 2017, in New York. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)(Photo11: Bebeto Matthews, AP)

Defense attorneys for three men indicted in the FBI's college basketball case give a hint of potential arguments against the government's charges in new court documents, as the lawyers argue they should be able to review some of the prosecution's evidence.

The information the government has, attorneys argue, could prove student-athletes and their families were not co-conspirators in the alleged scheme to defraud universities and that universities accepted NCAA rule violations as a cost of doing business, therefore were not victims of any such scheme.

It could also include conversations with former Louisville basketball player Brian Bowen or his family members. A description of who the government disclosed it has spoken with was redacted from the court documents.

A federal criminal complaint unsealed in September said the three defendants — Adidas executive James Gatto, former Adidas consultant Merl Code and sports agent Christian Dawkins — were involved in a plot to send the family Bowen, a highly rated high school recruit who signed with Louisville, up to $100,000 in bribes. The complaint alleged one payment worth $19,500 was made to a man believed to be Bowen's father, Brian Sr.

Gatto, Code and Dawkins are three of eight men who were indicted after an FBI investigation into corruption in college basketball recruiting. The FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office allege they were part of a bribery scheme that involved coaches, agents, players and their families.

Defense attorneys want to see what Bowen and his family, as well as other athletes, may have told the government because they see their participation as essential to the prosecution's theory of fraud.

Support our journalism

If they're able to prove the athletes and their families weren't co-conspirators, a jury could then be skeptical that the universities were defrauded or that the alleged conspiracy was designed to funnel money or property for the conspirators — thus breaking down the government's theory of college basketball corruption.

Attorneys also want more information on prosecutor's conversations with the coaches themselves because what they knew or didn't know directly impacts the defense they will make for their clients.

If coaches knew about the payments, then there was no scheme to defraud, they write.

"Evidence that the coaches believed that the Universities implicitly (or explicitly) accepted NCAA rule violations as a cost of doing business would undercut the allegation that the purpose of the alleged conspiracy was to deceive and harm the Universities," they wrote.

If coaches didn't know about the payments, then the government shouldn't be able to prove that the coaches planned to submit "'false' certifications regarding compliance with NCAA rules."

Attorneys want to review the material on Augustine, meanwhile, because they think it's plausible he has an "innocent explanation" for why he allegedly accepted an envelope of $12,700 to pay the family of an unnamed AAU player to send their son to Louisville, an event outlined in the original criminal complaint.

The government wouldn't dismiss his charges, defense attorneys wrote, unless his story "is more favorable to the defense than the Government's disclosure suggests."

When Augustine's charges were dropped in February, the Wall Street Journal said it was likely that prosecutors didn't have enough evidence to pursue charges against him, citing "people familiar with the case."

The attorneys request the court to order the disclosure of these witness statements or notes, because otherwise "Defendants may never receive this exculpatory and potentially dispositive evidence," they say, which could help free their clients.

Gatto was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, while Code and Dawkins were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bribery and payment of bribes and gratuities to an agent of a federally funded organization, among other charges.